Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

November 6, 2015

Indiana E-Filing Extended to Indiana Supreme Court and Court of Appeals

Indianapolis, Indiana – Chief Justice Loretta Rush of the Indiana Supreme Court today signed an order extending e-filing.

In July, the Indiana E-filing System (“IEFS”) commenced in Indiana’s state courts with a pilot program in Hamilton County. That program extends to filings with the Indiana Supreme Court and Court of Appeals effective Monday, November 9, 2015.

E-filing via IEFS will be required for all filings for appeals “in which: (a) either the Indiana Public Defender or the Marion County Public Defender, on one side, and the Attorney General of Indiana, on the other side, represent the parties to the appeal; and (b) the Notice of Appeal has already been conventionally filed.”

Other appeals for which a Notice of Appeal have been conventionally filed may submit filings through the IEFS but are not yet required to do so. The court’s plan is to require electronic filing in all Indiana state courts by the end of 2018.

November 5, 2015

Copyright Law: Copyright Office Publishes DMCA Exemption Rule

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Copyright Office, a part of the Library of Congress, issued a final rule adopting exemptions to the provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) that prohibits circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works.

The DMCA was enacted in 1998 to implement various elements of copyright-related World Intellectual Property Organization treaties. Included in the DMCA was a prohibition against circumventing technological measures employed by or on behalf of copyright owners to protect access to their works. The DMCA also provided for exemptions to this prohibition, which are issued by the Librarian of Congress following a rulemaking proceeding. In the course of this proceeding, the Librarian determines which “noninfringing uses by persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be, adversely affected by the prohibition against circumvention in the succeeding three-year period” and, through the final rule, exempts that class from the prohibition for that three-year period.

Under the DMCA, this final rule must consider “(i) the availability for use of copyrighted works; (ii) the availability for use of works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes; (iii) the impact that the prohibition on the circumvention of technological measures applied to copyrighted works has on criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research; (iv) the effect of circumvention of technological measures on the market for or value of copyrighted works; and (v) such other factors as the Librarian considers appropriate.”

November 4, 2015

176 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in October 2015

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S.
Trademark Office issued the following
176 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in October 2015 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration No.	Word Mark	Click To View

4830409	FULLBEAUTY BRANDS	LIVE
4842231	TRULY FLAWLESS	LIVE
4841223	YUNG MOGUL	LIVE
4841080	CPA LIFE	LIVE
4841040	ORTHOPEDIATRICS	LIVE
4840968	ECOSILVER	LIVE
4840421	FRESH START DENTURES	LIVE
4840418	PATIENT FRIENDLY PROMISE	LIVE
4840328	CORK MEDICAL	LIVE
4840310	3X	LIVE
4842921	BOWDAGGER	LIVE
4840081	SCAR TISSUE TREATMENT CENTERS OF AMERICA	LIVE

November 3, 2015

Patent Office Issues 186 Patents To Indiana Citizens in October 2015

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 186 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in October 2015, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:

PAT. NO.		Title
1	D741,984	Faucet handle
2	D741,940	Camera mount
3	D741,694	Robe hook
4	D741,682	Pull me up
5	9173041	Enhancing perception of frequency-lowered speech
6	9170912	System and methods for power and energy modeling in computing devices using system call tracing
7	9170583	Firefighting monitor and control system therefor
8	9170579	System, method and computer program product for monitoring and controlling industrial energy equipment
9	9170231	Quantification and characterization of allergens
10	9170065	Pocket hunting system
11	9170057	Evacuated tubes for solar thermal energy collection
12	9169921	Double transition shift control in an automatic powershifting transmission
13	9169784	Processing system and method for calculating pressure decreases due to injection events in a high-pressure fuel system
14	9169669	Lock status indicator

October 30, 2015

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Patent Infringement Litigation Involving Indiana-Based Zimmer

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C. -The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear appeals in two separate lawsuits, Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1513, and Stryker Corp, et al. v. Zimmer, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1520, on the issue of willfulness as a prerequisite for awarding enhanced damages in patent infringement litigation. The two cases were consolidated.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 284 of the Patent Act, a district court “may increase … damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” Despite this language, which on its surface is permissive and discretionary, the Federal Circuit imposes a stricter test. For a district court to award enhanced damages under § 284, this test requires that a patentee prove by clear and convincing evidence that infringement was “willful.” A determination of willfulness requires a finding of both (1) an objectively high likelihood that the infringer’s actions constituted infringement, and (2) that this likelihood was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer.

The questions presented to the Supreme Court are:

1. Has the Federal Circuit improperly abrogated the plain meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 284 by forbidding any award of enhanced damages unless there is a finding of willfulness under a rigid, two-part test, when this Court recently rejected an analogous framework imposed on 35 U.S.C. § 285, the statute providing for attorneys’ fee awards in exceptional cases?

2. Does a district court have discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 284 to award enhanced damages where an infringer intentionally copied a direct competitor’s patented invention, knew the invention was covered by multiple patents, and made no attempt to avoid infringing the patents on that invention?

The Court granted motions by Independent Inventor Groups and Nokia Technologies OY, et al. to file briefs as amici curiae.

Practice Tip: In December 2014, the Federal Circuit overturned the decision of the Western District of Michigan to triple the damages awarded to Stryker, reducing the amount from $228 million to $70 million.

October 29, 2015

Seventh Circuit News: Judge Tinder Retires from Federal Bench

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Earlier this month, Judge John Tinder officially retired from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, stepping down after more than 30 years of federal service.

Judge Tinder, a jurist who once described himself as a person with “too many hobbies” but “not enough time,” officially retired from the bench in early October. The announcement of his retirement inadvertently came not through the usual channels, but rather via a letter that he wrote in response to an unsolicited application that he received from someone seeking employment as a law clerk. In his reply, Judge Tinder wrote, “Thank you for applying for a clerkship with me. Your credentials are outstanding. However, I recently decided that I will be leaving the court in 2015 so I will not be hiring any additional clerks….” That letter was leaked to AboveTheLaw.com, which broke the news of Judge Tinder’s impending retirement.

A lifelong resident of Indiana, Judge Tinder received both his undergraduate degree and law degree from the Indiana University – Bloomington. Prior to his appointment to a federal judgeship, he served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana and, later, as the United States Attorney for the Southern District. In addition, he had engaged in the private practice of law in Indianapolis, had served as the Chief Trial Deputy for the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office and had been a public defender for the Criminal Division of the Superior Court of Marion County. Judge Tinder also taught as an adjunct professor at the Indiana University School of Law.

October 27, 2015

Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation: Roche Seeks Declaration of Non-Infringement of Meso’s Rights to ECL Technology

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana intellectual property attorneys for Plaintiff Roche Diagnostics Corporation of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana asking for a declaration of non-infringement of rights to patented technology licensed to Defendant Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC of Rockville, Maryland.

At issue in this patent-related lawsuit is the right to use patented Electrochemiluminescence (“ECL”) technology owned by BioVeris Corporation. ECL is a detection technology that uses electricity, chemistry and light to detect and measure the presence of specific molecules in a test sample. It is used to detect, monitor, and guide the treatment of disease and other conditions.

In 1995, BioVeris licensed its ECL technology to Defendant Meso. Under this license, Meso was granted an exclusive license to use ECL technology for certain limited purposes. BioVeris later entered licensing agreements granting Roche Diagnostics use of ECL technology. Meso contends that Roche Diagnostics’ use of BioVeris’ ECL technology constitutes a violation of the exclusive rights granted to Meso. Roche Diagnostics asserts that its use does not violate Meso’s rights under the Meso license and that, while Meso was not a party to the first agreement licensing the ECL technology to Roche Diagnostics, executed in 2003, Meso expressly consented to that entire agreement. A second agreement licensing the technology was executed between BioVeris and Roche Diagnostics in 2007.

In 2013, a related dispute between Miso and Roche Diagnostics in Delaware state court was resolved in favor of Roche Diagnostics after a five-day bench trial. That judgment was affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court in June 2015. Roche Diagnostics claims that, this concluded lawsuit notwithstanding, Meso continues to assert that Roche Diagnostics’ activities infringe Meso’s rights and continues to threaten litigation.

Indiana patent lawyers for Roche Diagnostics filed this action for declaratory judgment seeking a judgment declaring that it has not infringed Meso’s license rights in the ECL technology. Roche also seeks an award of attorney’s fees and costs.

Practice Tip: Because the validity of the BioVeris’ patents is not in dispute, and because Roche Diagnostics concedes that some of its products include BioVeris’ patented ECL technology, BioVeris was not included as a party in this lawsuit.

October 26, 2015

Indiana Patent Litigation: German Lawyers and Law Firm Sued on Allegations of Misappropriation of Intellectual Property

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – An Indiana patent attorney for Plaintiffs Never Lost Golf, LLC of South Bend, Indiana; Michael Carnell, a domiciliary of California who resides in Berlin, Germany and who does business as The Never Lost Golf Tee Saver and The Never Lost Golf Tee Saver Mat System (“NLG”); and Teresa O’Keefe and Grant Holloway, Trustees for the N.L.G. Living Trust filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging infringement of NLG’s German Patent A63B 57/100, which has been filed with the German Patent Office. Patent protection for NLG has also been sought with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Three Defendants in this litigation, Maia Steinert, Chrisoph Stephan and Ralf Menwegen, are partners and/or members of Steinert & Stephan, a German law firm. Steinert has been accused by Plaintiffs of “aggregious [sic] conduct in asserting ownership interest in the NLG German patent.” Stephan and Menwegen were accused of having been “involved in the patent process.”

Carnell contends that he retained Steinert & Stephan in 2010 to represent him in filing for a German patent for the Never Lost Golf product. He adds in his complaint that any intellectual property rights obtained by these filings were supposed to accrue to him alone. Carnell asserts that, subsequent to hiring the Steinert & Stephan and utilizing their services in pursuit of a German patent, Steinert applied for a Never Lost Golf patent with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. This filing, states Carnell, includes an assertion by Steinert that she was the sole owner of the patent rights associated with the NLG product. He states that her actions demonstrate an attempt to illegally claim rights to intellectual property that she knew was not hers, both in the United States and in Germany.

Two additional Defendants, Markus Schumann and Harribert Pamp, have been named as co-conspirators. Plaintiffs contend that they conspired with Steinert to commit fraud and perjury in support of Steinert’s assertion of ownership in NLG’s German patent.

Defendants seek equitable relief along with damages, costs and attorney fees.

October 23, 2015

International Intellectual Property Law: Intellectual Property and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

On October 4, 2015, Ministers of the 12 Trans-Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) countries – Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States, and Vietnam – announced conclusion of their negotiations. The result is an agreement that has been promoted as enhancing economic growth; supporting the creation and retention of jobs; enhancing innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raising living standards; reducing poverty; and promoting transparency, good governance, and enhanced labor and environmental protections.

TPP’s chapter regarding intellectual property (“IP”) covers patents, trademarks, copyrights, industrial designs, geographical indications, trade secrets, other forms of intellectual property, and enforcement of intellectual property rights, as well as areas in which participating countries agree to cooperate. The IP chapter will make it easier for businesses to search, register, and protect IP rights in new markets, which is particularly important for small businesses.

The chapter establishes standards for patents, based on the World Trade Organization’s (“WTO”) agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS”), and international best practices. On trademarks, it provides protections of brand names and other signs that businesses and individuals use to distinguish their products in the marketplace. The chapter also requires certain transparency and due process safeguards with respect to the protection of new geographical indications, including for geographical indications recognized or protected through international agreements. These include confirmation of understandings on the relationship between trademarks and geographical indications, as well as safeguards regarding the use of commonly used terms.

October 21, 2015

Northern District Transfers Copyright Infringement Litigation for Lack of Venue

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – District Judge Jon E. DeGuilio of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana transferred a lawsuit alleging copyright to the Southern District of Indiana, citing a lack of venue in the Northern District.

In this litigation, Angela E. Brooks-Nwenga, acting pro se, alleges that The Mind Trust, United Way of Central Indiana, Central Indiana Education Alliance, Phalen Leadership Academies and Indianapolis Public Schools, all of Indianapolis, Indiana, infringed her copyright work, “Transitioning Into Responsible Students.” Among the wrongdoings asserted are infringement involving Defendants’ use of “Bridges To Success Education School Model” and “Phalen Leadership Academies School Model”

This copyright lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Indiana, with Brooks-Nwenga acting as her own copyright attorney. The court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the litigation should not be transferred to the Southern District of Indiana. Brooks-Nwenga argued to the court that she lived in Fort Wayne, Indiana, but the court was not persuaded by this, noting that the statute governing venue in a federal lawsuit, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), provides that:

a civil action may be brought in:

(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;

(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or

(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

None of these criteria applied to this litigation. Brooks-Nwenga also contended that her prior litigation in the Southern District of Indiana had been excessively delayed and that her lawsuit had not received a fair and unbiased hearing. The court was similarly unswayed by this argument, stating that the court would “not hear appeals from other district courts.”

Finally, the court noted that, while venue in the Northern District was improper, “a substantial part, if not all, of the events or omissions giving rise to Ms. Brooks-Ngwenya’s claim seem to have occurred in the Southern District of Indiana.” Consequently, the court ordered the litigation transferred.